We've had countless discussions on here about the religious colloquialisms and sayings that others say that we tolerate (e.g. many don't mind something like, ("I hope you get better soon - I'll pray for you", or something as simple as "bless you" after a sneeze). But what about the other end of the spectrum?
What are the xian, or religious for that matter, sayings that drive you crazy or get under your skin? For instance, here are a couple of mine...
You get the idea.
Can't wait to read your thoughts on this!
When I was a teenager we were going through a tough financial time, and when I would confront my mom about something the answer to any problem, like not much food in the house, was "the lord will provide". That was always the most terrifying thing for me to hear.
God, it's whats for dinner?
Right, that does sound terrifying, because she's given up hope of any human providing a solution to a serious problem...which almost always equates to nothing changing. The worst part is, your attempt to get your needs met has just been totally shut down by that little phrase...because to a believer, only a person with weak faith would feel that waiting for the lord to provide is not good enough. In my family, that little phrase would be accompanied by an overt or covert message letting me know that my questioning the situation is akin to doubting god will provide, and perhaps our current situation was due to 'our' lack of faith. Mmmm, guilt, chicken soup for the Catholic soul. Sorry, I don't mean to be glib but I missed my share of meals too, and innapropriate, bad puns is how I deal with it.
You already mentioned the praying for and the sneezing ones so that's my biggest two... But they bother me so damn much. I'm tired of being told to pray for people, I'm not. I don't come to your house and tell you to read medical books about my problems, quit doing the same to me. And the sneezing garbage needs to stop solely because we're fully aware as a society now that it's not demon expulsion.
I covet your prayers.
Hedge of protection.
Everything happens for a reason.
"We are using the same data, we just have different interpretations" saith the creationist to the heathen.
I, the heathen, typically respond something akin to "Assuming that we are looking at the same data, has it ever occurred to you that you shouldn't start with a conclusion and force the data to fit the conclusion?" The typical creationist response is "You start with the conclusion that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life evolved because you don't believe in God. . ." It is difficult, from this point on, to explain how the scientific method works, and how "beliefs" like the old earth are reasonably supported claims, not conclusions or assumptions, and that there is much evidence for biological evolution. It is equally frustrating to show (prove, I suppose) that I did not start with these "conclusions". I had to see the data for myself in peer reviewed journals and text books. I may just stop arguing with creationists. It is tiring.
Or how about "You have just as much faith as I do", "Do you have faith in anything", or "Can't you just believe?" I could write pages about these alone, so I'll spare us the TL;DR.
Another one that gets on my nerves, as it does so many, is the ubiquitous "What would Jesus Do?"
Oh, I don't know for sure, but he sure as hell wouldn't store up riches for himself. Didn't he advocate selling all of ones possessions as the way to perfection? Sorry, I suppose that means you can forget about that private jet and big house, huh?
Ben a heathen is not an atheist it was usually referred to tribes that had their own god outside of the main religions. The scientific method is easy to understand. Someone comes up with a theory and a large group try to prove or disprove the theory. Galileo had his theory about gravity but in his day they didn't have rockets. So his theory that anything that went up came back down was wrong. For it's time it was correct. I imagine many of today's theories will fail the test in the future. As far as proofs about evolution there are many. Darwin did not say god had anything to do with it.
regarding heathen - I disagree quite strongly, and the "official" resources bear out my beliefs. As have many other words, the meaning of "heathen" has shifted - so much so that today the "common" or "slang" use has become the official meaning, i.e. heathen == nonreligious or atheist.
Just to verify that my thoughts were right on this, I did some checking here are my results - at least the top examples:
Noun:A person who does not belong to a widely held religion (esp. one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.
1. Offensivea. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
1: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2: an uncivilized or irreligious person
1. an unconverted individual of people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim;
As I just reread my response I think it could come across as brusk at the beginning - and I apologize for that, Halidom. I know that your statement about heathen was done as basically an aside, and was not the major part of your response.
So, please do not take offense, as none was intended. I just wanted to put my thoughts - and proof - out there about the term heathen. In fact, I have started a new discussion about it so we don't muddy the waters here with my sidetrack.
Move along, you looky-loos, mooove along... ;)
You could try saying that you start with no prior assumptions and just follow the evidence. And that he should do the same - ie, don't start with the assumption of God, etc.
Penn Jillette said it well (paraphrase from memory): If all religious things were to disappear, then people would re-invent them differently. If all scientific knowledge were to disappear, then it would all be re-discovered to be exactly the same.
Make him aware that scientists too used to believe the world was young. When biologists put forth the theory of evolution, the common _scientific_ argument against it was that the earth simply wasn't old enough for it to have happened. Even when geologists started to agree that it was, the astronomers and physicists said no, on the grounds that the sun could not be that old. Nuclear fusion had to be discovered before that issue was settled.
Far from "starting with" 4.6 billion years as the age of the earth, science had to be slowly convinced of it.